Newspaper wins appeal in Pullicino libel case

The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned a judgment of the Magistrates Court in terms of which Minister George Pullicino was awarded €466 (Lm200) in libel damages against the newspaper Kulħadd.

Mr Pullicino had claimed in his suit that he had felt libelled by an article entitled Jaggredixxi lill-President tal-Bord tal-Pitkali Crates (Assault on the President of the Board of the Government Vegetable Market Crates) published in Kullħadd of February 5, 2006.

The article alleged that when Mr Pullicino had carried out an inspection at the Pitkali market, he had objected to the way the crates were washed. According to the article, there was much shouting, and after the intervention of Mr Joseph Farrugia, Mr Pullicino had grabbed Mr Farrugia by the neck.

Felix Agius, the newspaper's editor, had pleaded that the article was based on facts. The Magistrates Court had, however, found in Mr Pullicino's favour and had ordered the newspaper to pay Mr Pullicino Lm200 in damages. Mr Agius then appealed to the Court of Appeal presided over by Mr Justice Philip Sciberras.

In yesterday's judgment, the court noted that the truth of an allegation constituted a defence to a libel action. If the article was proven to be true, then the plaintiff could not recover damages.

The evidence produced in this case was conflicting. Mr Pullicino had denied grabbing Mr Farrugia by the neck, and his testimony was confirmed by officials of the Agriculture Department. On the other hand, the witnesses produced by Mr Agius, all of whom were employees of Pitkali Crates Ltd, contradicted Mr Pullicino's statement.

The court added, however, that the evidence confirmed that at the time of the alleged incident, Mr Pullicino was very angry that the crates were not being washed properly. It also resulted that Mr Pullicino had grabbed Mr Farrugia by his jacket hood.

The Magistrates Court had concluded in favour of Mr Pullicino and had ruled that even though pulling Mr Farrugia's hood could be interpreted as an act of aggression, there was doubt due to the conflicting evidence. As a result, the first court could not conclude that there was a violent incident as reported in the newspaper article.

But Mr Justice Sciberras said it was a fact that immediately before the incident, Mr Pullicino had followed Mr Farrugia and grabbed him by the jacket collar while in a state of great rage and high excitement.

One could not conclude that Mr Pullicino's actions did not override the balanced conduct expected from a person occupying a public office as a government minister. Mr Pullicino's actions comprised aggressive conduct and it was very probable that he had grabbed Mr Farrugia, even momentarily, by the neck.

In conclusion, the court overruled the judgment of the first court and upheld Mr Agius' appeal. In the circumstances, the court ordered that the costs of the action be borne equally by both parties.